Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent by which the possession of the land had been allotted to the petitioners by Bhudan Board Non-petitioner No.5 has been taken by the respondent. It has been prayed that the land in dispute to be handed over to them. The petitioners submit that the land in dispute had been donated by one Ram Vallabh in the year 1954 and thereafter the petitioners were allotted the land in dispute on or about 211.1995, thereafter they were dispossessed in the year 1995. They made several representations with request that an enquiry may be held and the possession of the land in dispute may be restored to them, but no action was taken by the respondent. Hence, these writ petitions. 2. The State of Rajasthan file a reply stating therein that the land in dispute was recorded in the Revenue record in the khatedari of Sheoji, Harjeet, Gheesha Gujar and Ramvallabh had no right to donate the said land. In one of the khasras there was joint tenancy with other co-parceners. There was subsequent litigation by the co-parceners and the suit for partition of the land was decreed and consequently the land was taken possession of as a result of the execution of the decree. In that view of the matter the submission of the State is that there was no valid donation of the land as Ram Vallabh could not donate the land which was not in his khatedari. In that view of the matter no relief could be granted to the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were allotted the land for livelihood and had been in possession since 1955 and were dispossessed after nearly 40 years, in case, the said land was not available at least petitioners should have been allotted alternative land by the respondent. 4. So far as the alternative prayer of the petitioners is concerned the same appears to be reasonable. In the facts and circumstances therefore, while the relief for the possession of the land from which they have been dispossessed, can not be allowed as there was no valid gift by Ram Vallabh since he had no right to gift the same cannot be allowed. In the facts and circumstances therefore, while the relief for the possession of the land from which they have been dispossessed, can not be allowed as there was no valid gift by Ram Vallabh since he had no right to gift the same cannot be allowed. However, I deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances to direct the Collector, Jaipur to furnish a list of available land in district Jaipur, more particularly Tehsil Dudu, district Jaipur, to the petitioner through the Tehsildar Dudu for allotment and direct the Tehsildar to seek applications from the petitioners who are members of the weaker section of Society for allotment of the land and the land which is available may be allotted on priority basis to the petitioners in accordance with the allotment rules within three months from today. These writ petitions are consequently disposed of as indicated above. 5. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1293/1998, Sugna died during the pendency of the writ petition and he is survived by the following legal representatives Bhanwar Lal, Jai Narain, Ramesh Chand, Ram Swaroop sons of late Sugna, Smt. Bhonri Devi widow of late Sugna, Teeja, Gulab and Chothi daughters of late Sugna. The case of allotment of land will be considered for his legal representatives whose names are substituted for Sugna deceased petitioner. 6. These writ petitions stand disposed of . No order as to costs.